[1]
THE VALUE OF THE TREASURY.
"History no longer shall be a dull book. It shall walk incarnate
in every just and wise man. You shall not tell me by languages
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
8/160
and titles a catalogue of the volumes you have read. You shall
make me feel what periods you have lived. A man shall be the
Temple of Fame. He shall walk, as the poets have described that
goddess, in a robe painted all over with wonderful events and
experiences.... He shall be the priest of Pan, and bring with him
into humble cottages the blessing of the morning stars, and all
the recorded benefits of heaven and earth."
EMERSON.
CHAPTER I.
[3]
THE VALUE OF ARCHÆOLOGY.
The archæologist whose business it is to bring to light by pick and spade the relics of bygone
ages, is often accused of devoting his energies to work which is of no material profit to
mankind at the present day. Archæology is an unapplied science, and, apart from its
connection with what is caled culture, the critic is inclined to judge it as a pleasant and
worthless amusement. There is nothing, the critic tels us, of pertinent value to be learned from
the Past which wil be of use to the ordinary person of the present time; and, though the
archæologist can offer acceptable information to the painter, to the theologian, to the
philologist, and indeed to most of the folowers of the arts and sciences, he has nothing to give
to the ordinary layman.
In some directions the imputation is unanswerable; and when the interests of modern times
clash with those of the past, as, for example, in Egypt where a beneficial reservoir has
destroyed the remains of early days, there can be no question that the recording of the
threatened information and the minimising of the destruction, is al that the value of the [4]
archæologist's work entitles him to ask for. The critic, however, usualy overlooks some of the
chief reasons that archæology can give for even this much consideration, reasons which
constitute its modern usefulness; and I therefore propose to point out to him three or four of
the many claims which it may make upon the attention of the layman.
In the first place it is necessary to define the meaning of the term "Archæology." Archæology
is the study of the facts of ancient history and ancient lore. The word is applied to the study of
al ancient documents and objects which may be classed as antiquities; and the archæologist is
understood to be the man who deals with a period for which the evidence has to be
excavated or otherwise discovered. The age at which an object becomes an antiquity,
however, is quite undefined, though practicaly it may be reckoned at a hundred years; and
ancient history is, after al, the tale of any period which is not modern. Thus an archæologist
does not necessarily deal solely with the remote ages.
Every chronicler of the events of the less recent times who goes to the original documents for
his facts, as true historians must do during at least a part of their studies, is an archæologist;
and, conversely, every archæologist who in the course of his work states a series of historical
[5]
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
9/160
facts, becomes an historian. Archæology and history are inseparable; and nothing is more
detrimental to a noble science than the attitude of certain so-caled archæologists who devote
their entire time to the study of a sequence of objects without proper consideration for the
history which those objects reveal. Antiquities are the relics of human mental energy; and they
can no more be classified without reference to the minds which produced them than geological
specimens can be discussed without regard to the earth. There is only one thing worse than
the attitude of the archæologist who does not study the story of the periods with which he is
dealing, or construct, if only in his thoughts, living history out of the objects discovered by him;
and that is the attitude of the historian who has not familiarised himself with the actual relics left
by the people of whom he writes, or has not, when possible, visited their lands. There are
many "archæologists" who do not care a snap of the fingers for history, surprising as this may
appear; and there are many historians who take no interest in manners and customs. The
influence of either is pernicious.
It is to be understood, therefore, that in using the word Archæology I include History: I refer
to history supplemented and aggrandised by the study of the arts, crafts, manners, and
customs of the period under consideration.
As a first argument the value of archæology in providing a precedent for important
occurrences may be considered. Archæology is the structure of ancient history, and it is the [6]
voice of history which tels us that a Cretan is always a Cretan, and a Jew always a Jew.
History, then, may wel take her place as a definite asset of statecraft, and the law of
Precedent may be regarded as a fundamental factor in international politics. What has
happened before may happen again; and it is the hand of the archæologist that directs our
attention to the affairs and circumstances of olden times, and warns us of the possibilities of
their recurrence. It may be said that the statesman who has ranged in the front of his mind the
proven characteristics of the people with whom he is dealing has a perquisite of the utmost
importance.
Any archæologist who, previous to the rise of Japan during the latter half of the nineteenth
century, had made a close study of the history of that country and the character of its people,
might wel have predicted unerringly its future advance to the position of a first-class power.
The amazing faculty of imitation displayed by the Japanese in old times was patent to him. He
had seen them borrow part of their arts, their sciences, their crafts, their literature, their
religion, and many of their customs from the Chinese; and he might have been aware that they
would likewise borrow from the West, as soon as they had intercourse with it, those essentials
of civilisation which would raise them to their present position in the world. To him their
fearlessness, their tenacity, and their patriotism, were known; and he was so wel aware of [7]
their powers of organisation, that he might have foreseen the rapid development which was to
take place.
What historian who has read the ancient books of the Irish—the Book of the Dun Cow, the
Book of Balymote, the Book of Lismore, and the like—can show either surprise or dismay at
the events which have occurred in Ireland in modern times? Of the hundreds of kings of
Ireland whose histories are epitomised in such works as that of the old archæologist Keating,
it would be possible to count upon the fingers those who have died in peace; and the
archæologist, thus, knows better than to expect the descendants of these kings to live in
harmony one with the other. National characteristics do not change unless, as in the case of
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
10/160
the Greeks, the stock also changes.
In the Jews we have another example of the persistence of those national characteristics which
history has made known to us. The Jews first appear in the dimness of the remote past as a
group of nomad tribes, wandering over southern Palestine, Egypt, and the intervening deserts;
and at the present day we see them stil homeless, scattered over the face of the globe, the
"tribe of the wandering foot and weary breast."
In no country has the archæologist been more active than in Egypt during the last half century,
and the contributions which his spade and pick have offered to history are of first-rate
importance to that study as a whole. The eye may now travel down the history of the Nile [8]
Valey from prehistoric days to the present time almost without interruption; and now that the
anthropologist has shown that the modern Egyptians, Mussulman and Copt, peasant and
townsman, belong to one and the same race of ancient Egyptians, one may surely judge to-
day's inhabitants of the country in the light of yesterday's records. In his report for the year
1906, Lord Cromer, questioning whether the modern inhabitants of the country were capable
of governing their own land, tels us that we must go back to the precedent of Pharaonic days
to discover if the Egyptians ever ruled themselves successfuly.
In this pregnant remark Lord Cromer was using information which the archæologist and
historian had made accessible to him. Looking back over the history of the country, he was
enabled, by the study of this information, to range before him the succession of foreign
occupations of the Nile Valey and to assess their significance. It may be worth while to repeat
the process, in order to give an example of the bearing of history upon modern polemics,
though I propose to discuss this matter more fuly in another chapter.
Previous to the British occupation the country was ruled, as it is now, by a noble dynasty of
Albanian princes, whose founder was set upon the throne by the aid of Turkish and Albanian
troops. From the beginning of the sixteenth century until that time Egypt had been ruled by the [9]
Ottoman Government, the Turk having replaced the Circassian and other foreign "Mamlukes"
who had held the country by the aid of foreign troops since the middle of the thirteenth
century. For a hundred years previous to the Mamluke rule Egypt had been in the hands of
the Syrian and Arabian dynasty founded by Saladdin. The Fatimides, a North African
dynasty, governed the country before the advent of Saladdin, this family having entered Egypt
under their general, Jauhar, who was of Greek origin. In the ninth century Ahmed ibn Tulun, a
Turk, governed the land with the aid of a foreign garrison, his rule being succeeded by the
Ikhshidi dynasty of foreigners. Ahmed had captured Egypt from the Byzantines who had held
it since the days of the Roman occupation. Previous to the Romans the Ptolemies, a Greek
family, had governed the Nile Valey with the help of foreign troops. The Ptolemies had
folowed close upon the Greek occupation, the Greeks having replaced the Persians as rulers
of Egypt. The Persian occupation had been preceded by an Egyptian dynasty which had been
kept on the throne by Greek and other foreign garrisons. Previous to this there had been a
Persian occupation, which had folowed a short period of native rule under foreign influence.
We then come back to the Assyrian conquest which had folowed the Ethiopian rule. Libyan [10]
kings had held the country before the Ethiopian conquest. The XXIst and XXth Dynasties
preceded the Libyans, and here, in a disgraceful period of corrupt government, a series of so-
caled native kings are met with. Foreigners, however, swarmed in the country at the time,
foreign troops were constantly used, and the Pharaohs themselves were of semi-foreign origin.
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
11/160
One now comes back to the early XIXth and XVIIIth Dynasties which, although largely
tinged with foreign blood, may be said to have been Egyptian families. Before the rise of the
XVIIIth Dynasty the country was in foreign hands for the long period which had folowed the
fal of the XIIth Dynasty, the classical period of Egyptian history (about the twentieth century
B.C.), when there were no rivals to be feared. Thus the Egyptians may be said to have been
subject to foreign occupation for nearly four thousand years, with the exception of the strong
native rule of the XVIIIth Dynasty, the semi-native rule of the three succeeding dynasties, and
a few brief periods of chaotic government in later times; and this is the information which the
archæologist has to give to the statesman and politician. It is a story of continual conquest, of
foreign occupations folowing one upon another, of revolts and massacres, of rapid
retributions and punishments. It is the story of a nation which, however ably it may govern
itself in the future, has only once in four thousand years successfuly done so in the past.
[11]
[Photo by E. Brugsch Pasha.
The mummy of Rameses II. of Dynasty XIX.—CAIRO MUSEUM.
PL. I.
Such information is of far-reaching value to the politician, and to those interested, as every
Englishman should be, in Imperial politics. A nation cannot alter by one jot or tittle its
fundamental characteristics; and only those who have studied those characteristics in the
pages of history are competent to foresee the future. A certain Englishman once asked the
Khedive Ismail whether there was any news that day about Egyptian affairs. "That is so like al
you English," replied his Highness. "You are always expecting something new to happen in
Egypt day by day. To-day is here the same as yesterday, and to-morrow wil be the same as
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
12/160
to-day; and so it has been, and so it wil be, for thousands of years."[1] Neither Egypt nor any
other nation wil ever change; and to this it is the archæologist who wil bear witness with his
stern law of Precedent.
[1] E. Dicey. 'The Story of the Khedivate,' p. 528.
I wil reserve the enlarging of this subject for the next chapter: for the present we may
consider, as a second argument, the efficacy of the past as a tonic to the present, and its
ability to restore the vitality of any age that is weakened.
In ancient Egypt at the beginning of the XXVIth Dynasty (B.C. 663) the country was at a very [12]
low ebb. Devastated by conquests, its people humiliated, its government impoverished, a
general colapse of the nation was imminent. At this critical period the Egyptians turned their
minds to the glorious days of old. They remodeled their arts and crafts upon those of the
classical periods, introduced again the obsolete offices and titles of those early times, and
organised the government upon the old lines. This movement saved the country, and averted
its colapse for a few more centuries. It renewed the pride of workmanship in a decadent
people; and on al sides we see a revival which was the direct result of an archæological
experiment.
The importance of archæology as a reviver of artistic and industrial culture wil be realised at
once if the essential part it played in the great Italian Renaissance is caled to mind. Previous to
the age of Cimabue and Giotto in Florence, Italian refinement had passed steadily down the
path of deterioration. Græco-Roman art, which stil at a high level in the early centuries of the
Christian era, entirely lost its originality during Byzantine times, and the dark ages settled down
upon Italy in almost every walk of life. The Venetians, for example, were satisfied with
comparatively the poorest works of art imported from Constantinople or Mount Athos: and in
Florence so great was the poverty of genius that when Cimabue in the thirteenth century
painted that famous Madonna which to our eyes appears to be of the crudest workmanship, [13]
the little advance made by it in the direction of naturalness was received by the city with
acclamations, the very street down which it was carried being caled the "Happy Street" in
honour of the event. Giotto carried on his master's teachings, and a few years later the
Florentines had advanced to the standard of Fra Angelico, who was immediately folowed by
the two Lippis and Botticeli. Leonardo da Vinci, artist, architect, and engineer, was almost
contemporaneous with Botticeli, being born not much more than a hundred years after the
death of Giotto. With him art reached a level which it has never surpassed, old traditions and
old canons were revived, and in every direction culture proceeded again to those heights from
which it had falen.
The reader wil not need to be reminded that this great renaissance was the direct result of the
study of the remains of the ancient arts of Greece and Rome. Botticeli and his contemporaries
were, in a sense, archæologists, for their work was inspired by the relics of ancient days.
Now, though at first sight it seems incredible that such an age of barbarism as that of the later
Byzantine period should return, it is indeed quite possible that a relatively uncultured age
should come upon us in the future; and there is every likelihood of certain communities passing
over to the ranks of the absolute Philistines. Socialism run mad would have no more time to [14]
give to the intelect than it had during the French Revolution. Any form of violent social
upheaval means catalepsy of the arts and crafts, and a trampling under foot of old traditions.
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
13/160
The invasions and revolts which are met with at the close of ancient Egyptian history brought
the culture of that country to the lowest ebb of vitality. The fal of Greece put an absolute stop
to the artistic life of that nation. The invasions of Italy by the inhabitants of less refined
countries caused a set-back in civilisation for which almost the whole of Europe suffered.
Certain of the French arts and crafts have never recovered from the effects of the Revolution.
A national convulsion of one kind or another is to be expected by every country; and history
tels us that such a convulsion is generaly folowed by an age of industrial and artistic coma,
which is brought to an end not so much by the introduction of foreign ideas as by a
renascence of the early traditions of the nation. It thus behoves every man to interest himself in
the continuity of these traditions, and to see that they are so impressed upon the mind that they
shal survive al upheavals, or with ease be re-established.
There is no better tonic for a people who have weakened, and whose arts, crafts, and
industries have deteriorated than a return to the conditions which obtained at a past age of
national prosperity; and there are few more repaying tasks in the long-run than that of reviving [15]
an interest in the best periods of artistic or industrial activity. This can only be effected by the
study of the past, that is to say by archæology.
It is to be remembered, of course, that the sentimental interest in antique objects which, in
recent years, has given a huge value to al ancient things, regardless of their intrinsic worth, is a
dangerous attitude, unless it is backed by the most expert knowledge; for instead of directing
the attention only to the best work of the best periods, it results in the diminishing of the output
of modern original work and the setting of little of worth in its place. A person of a certain
fashionable set wil now boast that there is no object in his room less than two hundred years
old: his only boast, however, should be that the room contains nothing which is not of intrinsic
beauty, interest, or good workmanship. The old chairs from the kitchen are dragged into the
drawing-room—because they are old; miniatures unmeritoriously painted by unknown artists
for obscure clients are nailed in conspicuous places—because they are old; hideous plates
and dishes, originaly made by ignorant workmen for impoverished peasants, are enclosed in
glass cases—because they are old; iron-bound chests, which had been cheaply made to suit
the purses of farmers, are rescued from the cottages of their descendants and sold for
fabulous sums—because they are old.
A person who fils a drawing-room with chairs, tables, and ornaments, dating from the reign of [16]
Queen Anne, cannot say that he does so because he wishes it to look like a room of that date;
for if this were his desire, he would have to furnish it with objects which appeared to be newly
made, since in the days of Queen Anne the first quality noticeable in them would have been
their newness. In fact, to produce the desired effect everything in the room, with very few
exceptions, would have to be a replica. To sit in this room ful of antiques in a frock-coat
would be as bad a breach of good taste as the placing of a Victorian chandelier in an
Elizabethan banqueting-hal. To furnish the room with genuine antiquities because they are old
and therefore interesting would be to carry the museum spirit into daily life with its attending
responsibilities, and would involve al manner of incongruities and inconsistencies; while to
furnish in this manner because antiques were valuable would be merely vulgar. There are, thus,
only three justifications that I can see for the action of the man who surrounds himself with
antiquities: he must do so because they are examples of workmanship, because they are
beautiful, or because they are endeared to him by family usage. These, of course, are ful and
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
14/160
complete justifications; and the value of his attitude should be felt in the impetus which it gives
to conscientious modern work. There are periods in history at which certain arts, crafts, or
industries reached an extremely high level of excelence; and nothing can be more valuable to [17]
modern workmen than familiarity with these periods. Wel-made replicas have a value that is
overlooked only by the inartistic. Nor must it be forgotten that modern objects of modern
design wil one day become antiquities; and it should be our desire to assist in the making of
the period of our lifetime an age to which future generations wil look back for guidance and
teaching. Every man can, in this manner, be of use to a nation, if only by learning to reject
poor work wherever he comes upon it—work which he feels would not stand against the
criticism of Time; and thus it may be said that archæology, which directs him to the best
works of the ancients, and sets him a standard and criterion, should be an essential part of his
education.
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
15/160
[Photo by E. Brugsch Pasha.
Wood and enamel jewel-case discovered in the tomb of Yuaa and Tuau. An example of the furniture of one of
the best periods of ancient Egyptian art.—CAIRO MUSEUM.
PL. II.
The third argument which I wish to employ here to demonstrate the value of the study of
archæology and history to the layman is based upon the assumption that patriotism is a
desirable ingredient in a man's character. This is a premise which assuredly wil be admitted.
True patriotism is essential to the maintenance of a nation. It has taken the place, among
certain people, of loyalty to the sovereign; for the armies which used to go to war out of a
www.gutenberg.org/files/16160/16160-h/16160-h.htm
16/160
blind loyalty to their king, now do so from a sense of patriotism which is shared by the
monarch (if they happen to have the good fortune to possess one).
Patriotism is often believed to consist of a love of one's country, in an affection for the familiar [18]
vilages or cities, fields or streets, of one's own dweling-place. This is a grievous error.
Patriotism should be an unqualified desire for the welfare of the race as a whole. It is not realy
patriotic for the Englishman to say, "I love England": it is only natural. It is not patriotic for him
to say, "I don't think much of foreigners": it is only a form of narrowness of mind which, in the
case of England and certain other countries, happens sometimes to be rather a useful attitude,
but in the case of several nations, of which a good example is Egypt, would be detrimental to
their own interests. It was not unqualified patriotism that induced the Greeks to throw off the
Ottoman yoke: it was largely dislike of the Turks. It is not patriotism, that is to say undiluted
concern for the nation as a whole, which leads some of the modern Egyptians to prefer an
entirely native government to the Anglo-Egyptian administration now obtaining in that country:
it is restlessness; and I am fortunately able to define it thus without the necessity of entering the
arena of polemics by an opinion as to whether that restlessness is justified or not justified.
<